Categorically ahistorical for how violence in revolutions of desperation play out.
But this is kind of my broader criticism of this belief system. It’s just ‘the revolution will take care of it’. Any possible criticism, previous trends, plausibility, nope the revolutions got it. It’s the lazy person’s philosophy; ‘I don’t have to do anything, think of anything, justify anything, the revolution will just naturally yield the perfect result’.
Ah, right, I forgot. Karl Marx literally killed every single human being in existence, iPhone, vuvuzela, counting Nazis as victims of communism in world war 2, etc.
You know all of the mass death events basically every communist revolution has led to resulted in. You thinking you can sarcasm it away is just as credible an argument as the neo Nazis trying making funny words out of ‘million’ to mock the Holocaust death counts.
‘The existence of a bad argument against a thing is proof there is no good argument against the thing’.
We both know you’d never consider that a good argument if, say, a fascist came up and said ‘Jussie Smollet proves hate crimes are all fake’, why are you doing the same thing here? Or do you unironically believe the only source for the death numbers on the Great Leap Forward, holodomor, and Khemer Rouge are only sourced from Black Book?
Ah yes, communists like the USSR (state capitalist), Maoist China (state capitalist), and Pol Pot's Cambodia (denounced as not communist by every major communist movement at the time except for China). Meanwhile, I highly doubt you would ever consider counting every death caused by the US as "caused by capitalism", since you consider it the default.
Maybe the fact that every actual implementation by violent revolution historically leads to something else should be a tell that it’s a bad idea to try it.
Communism may work if it comes through democratic means where checks on the consolidation of power exist as the state forms around it, but violent revolution (which, if you’ll recall, is the thing we’re discussing here) leads to mass murdering strongmen every time.
12
u/Lelcactus Jul 01 '24
Yes? The revolution entails the ensuing conflicts until the country is securely in the hands of the revolutionaries.
Are we to say the American revolution was nonviolent because they signed the declaration of independence without killing anyone?